[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Mary]

> There has been an ongoing low-level disagreement between you and 
> Marsha about her "Wooly headed" meanderings into Buddhism.  I agree, 
> though likely not for the same reasons you do.  IMHO, these "moon 
> meanderings" are nice, but are not useful to me.  I cannot use any of 
> Marsha's statements to assist me with solving a computer problem, 
> getting my son to do his homework, or cooking dinner.

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of MarshaV
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:37 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium


Mary,

Why did you address this to me?     


Marsha





 On Jan 9, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Mary wrote:

> Hi Bo, Marsha and all,
> 
> I do not know who Paul Turner is, and I do not know why Pirsig wrote to
him,
> nor when.  Perhaps you can point me to these letters?  Based on the
snippets
> you quote, though, I am disturbed.  He appears to be watering down the
> original MoQ.  I hate to see it.
> 
> I started rereading Lila for the first time in 10 years just the other
> night.  I am on Page 37 of the Bantam paperback.  Yes, I am a slow reader,
> and also, my job prevents me from having much free time to do anything.
> Someday, someone will invent software that is smart enough to fix itself.
> At which time I will no longer have a job.  There will be a day when this
> happens to most of us.  It has already happened to many.  Cloud Computing
is
> bad news for those of us in the computer field.  Anyway, so far in the
book,
> everything is an object lesson in the (not yet revealed) definition of the
> Social level.  A good place to start.
> 
> Early on, Pirsig mentions that he considered naming the MoQ the
"Metaphysics
> of Value".  I kind of wish he had stuck with that, at least as far as it
> relates to the levels.  IMHO, the difference between the levels lie not in
> their mechanical differences, but in what they _value_.  Why is it so hard
> for many to see that the Intellectual level has _nothing_ to do with IQ,
> thinking, or thinking about thinking?  That set of patterns has been there
> to one degree or another from the very start.  To argue with me about this
> requires you to convince me that the people who wrote the old testament
were
> of a different species.  There is plenty of "intellect" in the Biological
> level.  There is plenty of "intellect" in computer systems today too.  Are
> computers operating on the Intellectual level?
> 
> As I see it the S/O split has existed from time immemorial.  My dog
> understands that she is different from the dog food she is eating, and me
-
> who scratches her behind her ears.  No, she does not recognize herself in
a
> mirror, but you gotta remember that dogs "see" the world mainly in terms
of
> scent.  They only see in black, white, and red (handy to see blood if you
> are a carnivore, I think).  When she looks at herself in the mirror, there
> are no smells coming back to her.  Same if I show her a picture of a dog.
> In her world these things have no value, because they do not smell like
the
> thing they represent.  So much of science is homo-centric.  The mirror
test
> somebody mentioned is a prime example.  IMO, this is pseudo-science, ripe
> for starting a religion around, as all pseudo-science is.  
> 
> The S/O split did not start with Aristotle.  He was an individual with a
> name, among a group of other individuals with names.  Any situation where
> naming is involved indicates that the S/O split is long entrenched.
> Wouldn't you agree?  The S/O split began in the Biological level, serves
an
> essential purpose, and is a very necessary pattern of value if you want to
> get through the day.  It works.  If I am one with the Universe (i.e., the
> Universe is me and I am it), why not try to position my car in the exact
> same location in space and time as your car?  I believe this is otherwise
> known as a car wreck.
> 
> There has been an ongoing low-level disagreement between you and Marsha
> about her "Wooly headed" meanderings into Buddhism.  I agree, though
likely
> not for the same reasons you do.  IMHO, these "moon meanderings" are nice,
> but are not useful to me.  I cannot use any of Marsha's statements to
assist
> me with solving a computer problem, getting my son to do his homework, or
> cooking dinner.
> 
> Mary's definition of the Intellectual Level based on Lila:  It is the
> pattern of values which hold seeking the truth above all preconceived
> notions and strongly held beliefs.  It is the pattern of value that takes
> the personal ego out of the equation.  The Intellectual level values
finding
> the truth - even if it turns out that you are wrong.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Mary
> - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...     
 






Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/